26 ms·
she merely claimed that she can't be held liable for anything she writes because she's a journalist This sounds like S&P and Moody's arguments about why nobody
by 001sky 13y ago
she merely claimed that she can't be held liable for anything she writes because she's a journalist
This sounds like S&P and Moody's arguments about why nobody should listen to (or hold them liable for) their Credit Ratings. The question of acting in good faith or with malice, however, seems to be still an open point. That is after all, the difference of expressing your opinion and shouting 'fire' in a movie theatre.
- nate_meurer 13y agoIf I may pick a nit, the test to be used in this case is not malicious intent, but negligence. In other words, in order to convict her of defamation, the jury must only be convinced that she acted negligently, i.e., that she failed to take a reasonable level of care to determine whether her published statements were true. In contrast, the malicious intent test looks for either "reckless disregard" for a statement's veracity, or positive knowledge of its falsity (is that a word?). This is a much stronger test reserved for situations where the victim is a public official, which the appeals court found was not the case here.
- 001sky 13y agoThis is a useful clarification.